European diplomats are raising red flags about what they see as the Trump administration’s hasty approach to nuclear negotiations with Iran, warning that an inexperienced American team could secure a shallow agreement that creates lasting complications.
Eight current and former diplomats with Iran nuclear experience told Reuters they’re concerned Washington’s desire for a quick diplomatic victory for President Trump could result in a framework deal that looks good initially but falls apart during detailed follow-up discussions.
“The concern isn’t that there won’t be an agreement,” a senior European diplomat explained. “It’s that there will be a bad initial agreement that creates endless downstream problems.”
The White House pushed back against these criticisms when contacted by Reuters. Spokeswoman Anna Kelly stated: “President Trump has a proven track record of achieving good deals on behalf of the United States and the American people, and he will only accept one that puts America first.”
BACKGROUND ON PREVIOUS NUCLEAR AGREEMENT
Representatives from France, Britain and Germany, who started Iran negotiations in 2003, report feeling excluded from current discussions.
These three nations collaborated with the United States between 2013 and 2015 to establish an agreement limiting Iran’s nuclear activities in return for lifting sanctions, called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.
During his first presidency in 2018, Trump pulled America out of this landmark foreign policy achievement from Barack Obama’s administration, describing it as “horribly one-sided.”
Following 40 days of military strikes, American and Iranian representatives began new discussions in Islamabad this month, once again centered on the standard exchange of nuclear limitations for economic benefits. Recent activity in Pakistan’s capital suggests preparations for renewed direct negotiations may be underway.
Diplomatic sources indicate that deep suspicion and vastly different negotiating approaches increase the likelihood of creating a weak framework that neither country can politically maintain.
Federica Mogherini, who oversaw the 2013-2015 negotiations, emphasized the complexity involved: “It took us 12 years and immense technical work. Does anyone seriously think this can be done in 21 hours?”
CONCERNS ABOUT SUPERFICIAL AGREEMENTS
Diplomatic sources suggest a basic agreement covering nuclear and economic elements might be possible, though they emphasize the nuclear aspects remain the most challenging.
“The Americans think you agree on three or four points in a five-page document and that’s it, but on the nuclear file, every clause opens the door to a dozen more disputes,” another European diplomat noted.
Current discussions center on Iran’s stockpile of approximately 440 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60% purity, material that could potentially be used for nuclear weapons with additional processing.
The preferred solution involves “downblending” this material within Iran under International Atomic Energy Agency oversight. An alternative approach would involve shipping some material to other countries.
Turkey and France have been suggested as potential receiving nations. Moving material to the United States would be politically challenging for Iran, while Russia presents difficulties for Washington, according to diplomatic sources.
Even these alternatives would require extensive negotiations regarding material recovery from areas possibly damaged by airstrikes, quantity verification, and secure transportation methods.
Iran has also proposed storing material in foreign countries temporarily.
“Whatever happens now is only a starting point,” explained a Western diplomat with previous nuclear negotiation experience. “That’s why the 2015 JCPOA ran to 160 pages.”
Beyond stockpile issues lies the fundamental disagreement over Iran’s uranium enrichment rights. Trump has publicly advocated for complete elimination of enrichment, while Iran maintains its right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes and denies pursuing weapons.
A potential middle ground might involve a temporary halt followed by resumption at minimal levels under strict oversight.
European officials stress that central IAEA involvement, including thorough verification and unlimited access, remains crucial.
Gérard Araud, France’s lead negotiator from 2006 to 2009, cautioned: “A negotiation with Iran is meticulous and subtle: every word matters. That’s not something you rush.”
ECONOMIC RELIEF AND POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS
The economic component focuses on removing sanctions and releasing frozen Iranian funds.
Iran immediately wants access to limited overseas frozen assets. Broader sanctions removal would occur later and requires European cooperation, diplomatic sources said, since Iranian leadership views European commerce as essential long-term.
Officials indicate Washington is again separating preliminary agreements from detailed implementation, an approach they believe misunderstands Iranian political dynamics.
“These talks aren’t a real-estate deal settled with a handshake,” said a senior regional diplomat briefed by Tehran, referencing Trump’s primary negotiators Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner’s business backgrounds. “They involve sequencing, sanctions relief and reciprocal nuclear steps.”
The recent conflict has strengthened Iran’s negotiating position, diplomats noted, demonstrating its ability to withstand pressure while still seeking economic relief.
Tehran’s primary requirement is a non-aggression commitment after experiencing attacks from the U.S. and Israel during previous diplomatic initiatives.
This worry extends to U.S. partners. Gulf nations want Iran’s missile programs and proxy operations addressed, while Israel advocates for maximum restrictions.
Iran, however, views its remaining missile capabilities as essential protection after the war weakened its military forces.
Diplomatic sources say demanding complete missile abandonment would be unrealistic without comprehensive security assurances.
A senior Trump administration official outlined Washington’s non-negotiable demands: stopping uranium enrichment, dismantling major enrichment facilities, recovering highly enriched uranium, and accepting a broader regional de-escalation agreement involving allied nations.
EUROPEAN ROLE REMAINS IMPORTANT DESPITE SIDELINING
European officials admit they partially marginalized themselves by advocating for renewed U.N. sanctions last year and designating Iran’s Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization.
However, they note that their choice to avoid the conflict has been recognized in Tehran.
“There’s simply not enough expertise in this U.S. team,” stated one European official, pointing out that approximately 200 diplomats, financial specialists and nuclear experts participated in the 2015 negotiations. “We’ve worked on this file for two decades.”
A White House official confirmed that representatives from the National Security Council, State Department and Defense Department participated in Islamabad meetings and continue their involvement.
